Angelina Jolie Pens Editorial On Iraq For Washington Post

Angelina Jolie has been busy. The actress-humanitarian-UN ambassador recently returned from a trip to Iraq and revealed she's pregnant. She has now written an editorial for the Washington Post on her trip and the need for humanitarian aide:

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today's humanitarian crisis in Iraq -- and the potential consequences for our national security -- are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won't explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money -- but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

Read the whole thing.

Comments

[KyleCope]

Have you seen this Hillary spoof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGMgxFE6bms

[vippy]

The right always bashes people who actually do as they preach. Nothing new there!
The right bashed our war heroes while they jeered their cowards with deferments or
as in Bush's case, had to use Harriet Miers to clean up his military record. Shame
on you guys.

[AaaBee]

Don't forget blaming Clinton as a cover for every crime committed in WA today.

[MIHOP]

Our country is full of officials and dignitaries, elected, appointed, even self-appointed, with relatively little front-row &/or organizational appreciation or experience of the issues on which they pontificate. The current administration comes to mind.

Jolie is not some bleeding heart bimbo. She is an incredibly dedicated person who puts her considerable abilities, goodwill and good fortune to good use for the benefit of others to a degree and in a manner that few in her position have done or are doing, and is to be commended for her efforts. She has worked and continues to work shoudler to shoulder with the best and the brightest to learn about and contribute toa variety humanitarian effort. As a high-level, intensively involved, thoroughly experienced, high-impact humanitarian activist/ambassador, she has ABSOLUTELY earned the right to speak on the topic with authority.

George Bush has created one of the largest, if not the largest humanitarian crises in the world. I agree with Jolie that, as the perpetrator and as the world's superpower, we havea moral obligation to do our best to ensure the long-term welfare of the Iraqi people. I don't think, and I'm not convinced she does either, that this requires a huge standing army. In fact, the army created and sustains the refugee crisis. The role the US needs to focus on, and hopefully the international community will participate, not only to share the burden but diffuse the sense of an occupation, is the organized humanitarian and infrastructural leadership and support: food, water, shelter, electricity, medical, etc. Much of this, I believe, should be done through the support of existing non-profits, whose motives are focused on solving the problem for the good of those they serve.

[appacom]

"I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy." A. Jolie
Jolie never suggested that troops go or stay. She simply asked that the next president (and congress) include resolving the refugee crisis in their Iraqi plan for action.
Her article is thoughtful, even-handed, and well-written. Unfortunately, the headline that tops this op-ed piece does not reflect the article's content. (Blame Washington Post editor, not Jolie, for this error.)
If anyone has earned the right to speak about refugee issues, it is Jolie. But, the good thing about being an American is that we don't have to earn that right, we're born with it. That obviously includes the woefully ill-informed who've nothing better to do than expose their ignorance (and mean-spiritedness) by posting here. (Be glad for the internet's protective cloak of anonymnity, Fools.)
Again, Jolie makes an important contribution to making this a better world. I'm proud to be among the millions who are deeply appreciative.

[watchingthings]

Sure would be nice if Hillary could present herself as an Angilina Jolie type person. As things stand Hillary is just an empty shell....making all kinds of accusations....and in her mind being the perfect person....in a world that dosn't understand her feelings.......her hopes.......her aspirations......"Why can't the idiotic masses see things my way?"....poor Hilly thinks.

[Mollye]

Childish.

[grisgris]

Why, because she's a WOMAN? Your desperation is showing.

[AaaBee]

Actually, I agree with most of this. Has Hillary been to Iraq?
Had Obama been to Iraq? Has McCain?
When is the last time Bush has gone, or Cheney, or anyone in power in WA?

Ms. Jolie may not have lived an exemplary life but does that negate her voice? Perfect woman or not, it takes courage to do what she has done, physically walking through the reality of US occupation of Iraq and commenting on it from her experiences.

Bush comments on US occupation of Iraq from the reality of another luxurious state dinner, didn't even know that his own country's gas is up to $4, and he is in charge of this war.

As if we all need to be perfect before we take a stand.

[adl]

Actually, Barack Obama has visited Iraq. Early 2006. There may be other times, but that's the time I know about.

[adl]

From TheHill.com (8/1/07) -

"Among the other contenders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) each boast three trips to Iraq. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has made the trip twice, while Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has visited Iraq once."

"Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have each made six trips" to Iraq.

[mountainwhere]

She's right, $261M is a lot of money. However, I would like to see some of these "stars" who make upwards of $10M - $20M a film, really step up for once. I am tired of supporting their enormous environmentally unfriendly homes, cracker-jack movies with no plot or point and $3000 shoes and suits. If you really wanted to do something as a UN embassador, Jolie, then rally your Hollywood friends to do more with the enormous (not necessarily worthy) paychecks they receive. That would be a welcome change.

[GrandyK]

You do know don't you that Angelina and Brad are working in NOLA and have had very little success with the top earners contributing.

[GrandyK]

Why do you single out actors? Singers make way more and then there are the corporate CEOs -- Ms.Jolie makes a fraction of what some of them get each and every year.

[katok]

Food is better than the blunt or working end of an M16. To that we would all agree. I too would rather spend the money on hope, rather than tyranny. That is all she basically wrote. What is wrong with you people?

[Alessan]

Hope doesn't buy food, end the war in the middle east, spending too high, this country is in
debt to every third world country. We are suppose to be the leaders, instead we owe our
souls to communist China.

[DennyCrane]

It's nice to see a celebrity using their fame to bring attention to something to so important. I don't care for her movies, but it's refreshing to see a celebrity who isn't just focused on themselves i.e. Britney, Lindsay, Paris, George Bush.

[Bacowall]

We have another Princess Diana in the making. It is absolutely refreshing to read about this.
www.vernasmith.blogspot.com

[ptarantino]

Angela has done some good humanitarian efforts, but seems treading dangerously here.

I think you can't overlook that her dad (Jon Voight) is the neo-con's #1 celebrity.

[rwe]

guilt (you can argue either way )by association is irrelevant.

[racom]

OMG,OMG, why haven't we heard this before? What about her great grand mother on her mothers side, what about her? What do you have her her cousins husbands mother? This is serious. How can we now just let her speak for herself, she is so tainted!

[shedances]

It's not Ms. Jolie's place to recommend that American troops stay in Iraq. The Iraqi people/government must think we are absolutely nuts to follow any foreign policy/military advice from a well-known Hollywood celebrity who is relatively uneducated. On the plus side, I think Ms. Jolie has been doing an otherwise great job in her role as UN ambassador ~ particularly in Africa. However, she sounds very naive in her views on our country's future in Iraq. We don't belong there, and the Iraqis really don't want us to stay long-term. Even sheltered Hollywood stars ought to understand that reality.

K

[timothe]

I give her a lot of credit for going over there and then calling it as she sees it. Jolie is not a professional journalist and she's certainly not military. We all know that. But she is a decent human being and she is offering a lot more to the public discourse about Iraq than say....Tim Robbins.

Someone on this thread linked her to Nazism. How sad.

[CSE]

There were no humanitarian allowances made for our 2003 invasion of Iraq. A good deal of animosity within Islam and the Arab world even before the invasion had to do with the lack of humanitarian aid given innocent children in Iraq after the Gulf War for over a decade.

And to move away from the illusion that there is some significant difference in American foreign policy due to party affiliation, one of the most infamous incendiary remarks that resounds through Islam still today was uttered by Madeleine Albright when she was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

in 1996, CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright,

"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? "

Albright answered,

"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

Check the following link for more detailed discussion:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp

[BluGrrl]

I think it is nice that Jolie is a humanitarian but I think it was a bad decision to travel to Iraq while pregnant.

[lisakaz]

Maybe not. If taken, the militants might think twice about killing a pregnant lady.

[prscnt1]

Ms. Jolie should reflect on the cause that created these refugees...

I do not understand what have invested except the destruction of a civilization which was somehow managing to struggle through religious differences and racial differences whether it was to our liking or not.

Objective displacing Saddam was fine, but by killing 100,000+, displacing over 2.5 MILLIONS, destroying infra-structure, destroying only source of revenues of the country, inciting old racial and religious pathos was not the way.

I just would like Ms. Jolie to stop hiding behind "humanitarian" bullshit, and face the reality. Iraq is a broken civilization and would need 100 years to rebuild. Further, in the process, the US is on the verge of financial crisis (we already dispensed with moral, ethical and legal crisises), and simply can not continue the self-destructive path.

Finally, please spare me the wisdom ofthe high school drop outs, indoctrinated to kill.

[FirstShirt]

Any President, democrat or republican, will support and defend the constitution against against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't care what they say now to get elected. American troops will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. Might as well get your posters ready now for the marches in the street. Just leave the effiigies until later since we don't know who the president will be.

What will be amusing will be the shock and response of the extreme left wingnuts. Not your normal, everyday liberal democrat. The accusations of hypocracy and just saying something to get elected will be directed at a democrat, if things work out that way in the general election. Enjoy.

What democrats under about age 50 haven't experienced is a real wave of antiwar protests. The Berkeley flag burning was a hint of things to come. I remember Lyndon Johnson, a real tough old liberal who engaged in a war on poverty and fought for the rights of the common man. He also raised our presence in Viet Nam to 500,000. He retired and refused to run. I can still hear the chanting: "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today." His replacement was Richard Nixon who promised to get us out of Viet Nam. When he was elected he invaded Cambodia.

They are all the same.

[Wilburrr]

In 1968 there were two presidential peace candidates. Robert Kennedy, heir apparent, was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan. Eugene McCarthy was censured at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, helping to trigger the riots and unrest there. Nixon ran on his "secret plan" to extract the US from Vietnam, a claim that was not taken very seriously by voters at the time. Hubert Humphrey, who very possible would have made an excellent president, was viewed by the electorate as more of the same as he was Johnson's vice president. Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam was based on the mis-information fed to him by General Westmoreland. Westmoreland was commander of operations in Vietnam until 1968 when he became US Army Chief of Staff. He was caught in the lies he was feeding to the administration by the TET offensive. Having maintained the position that we were winning, Vietnam was a winnable war, and 'the enemy' was being defeated on all fronts, General Giap launched a synchronized offensive all over the country. The ancient city of Hue was taken by Giap's forces and the house to house fighting in that battle brought images to nightly news programs in the US that bolstered opinion against the war.

[Alessan]

Vietnam was not a winable war, whereever did you hear that, it was jungle warfare our troops were not prepared. If we could have dropped the bomb as the US did in Japan, it would have been winable. Of course we didn't do that because of China, which also had nukes, it would have been the war to end all. So we stopped funding the war and brought the troops home finally, the only common sense solution. The US can't win
every war, and the US should have learned from England and France that colonizing other people's countries is not the answer.